President Donald Trump is set to issue a series of executive orders on his first day in office, including a controversial move to end birthright citizenship in the United States. This action aims to reinterpret the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which has traditionally granted automatic citizenship to anyone born on American soil, regardless of their parents’ immigration status.
This move could have far-reaching consequences as an estimated 4.7 million children have one or both parents without legal status as of 2019. It would represent a significant shift in how the U.S. approaches immigration and the concept of belonging. The change could also affect the economic and educational success rates of immigrants’ children.
The attempt to end birthright citizenship is expected to face immediate legal challenges as constitutional experts and immigrant rights advocates argue that such a change would require a constitutional amendment rather than an executive order.
Birthright citizenship is a fundamental principle in the United States that grants automatic citizenship to individuals born within the country’s territory, regardless of their parents’ citizenship or immigration status. This concept is rooted in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
Birthright citizenship has allowed the U.S. to become a diverse nation of people with roots from around the world. However, it has also been a subject of political debate because some argue that it encourages illegal immigration and should be restricted while advocates maintain that it is a fundamental right that ensures equality and prevents the creation of a permanent underclass.
Recent political discussions have centered around potential changes to birthright citizenship, with some proposing to reinterpret or modify the 14th Amendment’s application. However, as stated previously, any such changes would likely face significant legal challenges, as the principle is deeply embedded in constitutional law and Supreme Court precedent.